Scriptwriting, Networking, and Film

Polanski, Criminal, Cinematic Genius, or Both?

Director and writer Roman Polanski has been a controversial figure since his conviction of having sex with a 13-year-old girl in California, 1977. When Polanski was released on bail for this conviction, he fled to Europe. He eventually ended up in Gstaad, Switzerland, a gorgeous and affluent area. I know this because I visited there in the 60’s. I remember it well. Here and in other places in Europe, Polanski, lived in the lap of luxury. In the States and Europe he made films such as Chinatown, Knife in the Water, Repulsion, and Rosemary’s Baby, among many others. Many famous actors took part in his films. He is by all accounts a fabulous director and writer.

Having sex with a 13-year-old is considered statutory rape in California and the United States. Doesn’t this mean he should be held accountable for his crime? The United States and California have been trying to have him extradited for eons. Recently they came closer to this prospect when Switzerland had him imprisoned. Polanski has now been placed under house arrest. He must pay off his 4.5 million dollar bail to be released from house arrest.

All these years Polanski has thwarted his responsibility. He has lived the good life. He in essence lived above the law. Isn’t time he faced his accusers? Being an excellent director and writer does not excuse them from having to obey the law.

The fact that Polanski ran away from being prosecuted says to me that he is guilty. Why else would he have jumped ship? He had powerful people in powerful places behind him; shouldn’t he have utilized those resources before he decided to run?

Just a little note from imdb.com about Polanski:

In 1969, while he was on out-of-town business, his wife, actress Sharon Tate was brutally murdered by members of Charles Manson’s cult family; though Manson only ordered the killing and was not present during the murders. She was eight-months pregnant with their first child at the time. He has said that his life’s biggest regret was not being present at the house on Cielo Drive, Beverly Hills the night his wife Sharon Tate and four others were brutally murdered.

Some people think it was this event in his life that altered him and ultimately made him take advantage of the 13-year-old. Not that this makes it right either but, the 13-year-old girl’s mother dressed her daughter up in a promiscuous manner and dropped her off at Polanski’s house. I certainly would have chaperoned my daughter at that age.

Hopefully my memory won’t fail me here. Why? Because his charge was still on the books and California needed closure, legally, though they didn’t try too hard – after all this is decades old. Polanski was in court for the matter. A plea bargain or arrangement was made with the prosecutor for Polanski to sort it all out and everyone would get on with their lives. But it looks like the California legal system welched on the deal and Polanski was informed that he was up for harder charges. So he skipped. Anyway, that’s the way I remember the news blurbs. From what I read, he did settle with the family in an agreement that I believe was sealed with a non disclosure contract. Which is why the family is no longer interested in pursuing legal action.

So, if the principals got together as responsible citizens and worked out their differences, why shouldn’t the rest of us consider it a closed matter? Was justice served? Is some kind of public persecution and judicial revenge required to satisfy spectators who weren’t there?

Personally, for me, it’s a dead issue. They worked it out and life goes on. And though she was young, it was admitted that it’s statutary because of her age. Apparently she was involved with him voluntarily, there was no force or coersion. Back then, when I was in school, kids were having sex at that age. The only difference is that she chose an older partner. Also, if California was initially willing to let him plea down, it’s apparent that at least some people in the system felt that justice would have been served with a plea arrangement.

Wow, what a story, but sorry, the whole thing for it being okay for a mere girl to “voluntarily” give herself to a much older man puts up a huge red flag for me.

If it was settled and things have now changed, I really don’t get that. Perhaps since the girl is older now, she has decided what happened is not a good thing? Has she said anything about this renewed accusation? Has she brought this to the forefront in any way?

OK, I wasn’t clear. When he was arrested, in Switzerland, she said she wasn’t interested in pursuing the matter.

And I didn’t say, to quote you, that, “the whole thing for it being okay for a mere girl to “voluntarily” give herself to a much older man.”. I did say that California would press charges and did not think it was OK, either. And since they are the final judge on this case, I will say that as the law of the land, whatever they, the California judiciaries, decide to do with Polanski, must be seen as a just and fair conviction and punishment for breaking the law. Certainly, he should never have gotten involved. It was wrong. He had to have known the law and he had to have been aware of his actions. California has every right to decide the consequences of his actions.

I just looked up some of the press. He fed her champagne and a qualude and had sex with her. She said she was afraid to resist “much”. It’s obvious now, after finally checking for press reports that he did force it on her and she didn’t want it. In 1997 she publicly forgave him and has asked repeatedly that the charges be dropped. She also said that as bad as her experience was, the worst part of it was the press hounding her then and now.

So, thanks for getting me involved enough to look for the truth. I never cared about him one way or the other but I feel better about knowing what really happened. On that score, your blog was a success.